COMPARABILITY OF WATER

STATUS ASSESSMENT

Przemysław Gruszecki

Mateusz Zakrzewski

Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection, Poland

Budapest, 2011 The Śniardwy Lake

DANUBE

UCKER

ODRA

VISTULA

ELBE

DNIESTER

NIEMEN

PREGOŁAŚWIEśA

JARFT

River basindistricts in Poland

Polish water bodies and their typology(2010)

Water bodies

rivers lakes coastal transitional

Types of water bodies 26 13 3 5

Danube RB 11

Vistula RB 2610 483 6 5

ŚwieŜa RB 4 1

Jarft RB 6

Elbe RB 8

Odra RB 1670 419 5 4

Pregola RB 119 100

Niemen RB 39 34

Dniester RB 3

All river basins in Poland 4470 1042 11 9

Typology of water bodies in Poland

DANUBE

UCKER

ELBE

DNIESTER

NIEMEN

PREGOŁAŚWIEśAJARFT

Sampling Points

1026615501747operational

141643315429surveillance

coastaltransitionalreservoirslakesrivers

Categories of water bodies

Type ofmonitoring

Monitoring vs assessmentcomparability

• Not each WB has to be monitored (but methods for

extrapolation are not fully developed)

• SM and its representativity

• Overall assessment and reports: SM, OM, both?The Hel Pennisula

Ecological status / potential:

• biological indicators,

• hydromorphology,

• physico – chemical indicators

Chemical status:

• Priority chemical substances,

• Other polluting substances

STATUS OF WATER BODY

Phytobenthos sample

WIOŚ laboratory

Reference values and EQRs in PLMethods of ecologicalstatus assessment

rivers lakes transitional coastal

phytoplankton

(chlorophyll „a”)

phytobenthos

macroinvertebrates

macroalgae and angiosperms

macrophytes

ichtiofauna

White field: not existGreen field: assessment method and EQR

Yellow field: method under developmentOrange frame: intercalibrated

Biological assessment

BiologicalBiological assessmentassessment

ComparabilityComparability problemsproblems::

��One out One out –– all out all out rulerule isis not not inin useuse inin all EU all EU MemberMember StatesStates

��GapsGaps inin intercalibrationintercalibration results (not all results (not all

biologicalbiological elementselements, not all , not all riverriver / / lakeslakes typestypes))

�� IntercalibratedIntercalibrated assessmentassessment methodsmethods; ; samplingsamplingmethodsmethods stillstill differdiffer

�� IntercalibrationIntercalibration onlyonly for for naturalnatural WBWB

��NonNon--EU EU countriescountries

Limnephilidae sp.

Physico-chemical indicators

GroupsGroups ofof physicophysico--chemicalchemical indicatorsindicators::

��PhysicalPhysical indicatorsindicators

��OxygenOxygen andand organicorganic pollutantspollutants indicatorsindicators

��SalinitySalinity indicatorsindicators

��AcidityAcidity indicatorsindicators

��NutrientsNutrients concentrationconcentrationThe Vistula River in Warsaw

The Dunajec River

Physico-chemical assessment

AssessmentAssessment rulerule::

numbernumber ofof samplessamples ≥≥ 12 12 –– 90 90 percentilepercentile

numbernumber ofof samplessamples < 12 < 12 –– maximummaximum

ExceptionException for for oxygenoxygen concentrationconcentration::

numbernumber ofof samplessamples ≥≥ 12 12 –– 10 10 percentilepercentile

numbernumber ofof samplessamples < 12 < 12 –– minimumminimum

ONE OUT ONE OUT –– ALL OUTALL OUT

Physico-chemical assessment

Comparability problems:

�One out – all out?

�Methods for integration of results may differbetween countries

� Boundaries may be or may be not type-specific

� Physico-chemical boundaries are not included inthe IC process

�HMWB / AWB

�Non-EU countries do not have to follow the RDW assessment procedure

The Vistula River

HydromorphologyHydromorphology

��RegularRegular monitoring monitoring ofof riverriver flowflow

��HM HM parametresparametres as a part as a part ofof HMWB / AWB HMWB / AWB designationdesignation

��HM HM parametresparametres as a part as a part ofof basinbasincharacteristicscharacteristics

��HM as a part HM as a part ofof assessmentassessment mentionedmentioned onlyonlyinin a CIS a CIS guidanceguidance

��HM HM isis anan importantimportant element element ofof all all biologicalbiologicalmetricsmetrics

The Biebrza River

Pressure related biological indicatorsEutrophicatio

nLand use

Hydro-morphology

Diversity ofmicrohabitat

s

Totaldegradation

phytobenthic or phytoplanctonic algae

hydromacrophytes benthic macroinvertebrates

ichtiofauna

Operational monitoring

Comparability problems:

�The same pressure – different biological

elements chosen

�Really comaparable results?Nenufars and Typha river plant community

ChemicalChemical status status assessmentassessment

� List of substances given in EQS Directive

[2008/150/EC]

� Standards for substances given in EQS Directive

[2008/150/EC]

� Technical specifications for chemical analysis in

QA/QC Directive [2009/90/EC]

ONE OUT – ALL OUTThe Vistula River in Warsaw

Assessment of water bodies with many sampling points

Lakes WB

(both natural and HM)

Coastal WB

Transitional WB

all data assessment (average of

metrics from all sampling points)

Reservoirs

• results from closing points

or

• all data assessment (average of

metrics from all sampling points)

River WB

(both natural and HM)

Multi-points WB assessment

Comparability problems:

�Average of final assessment? (indicator level,

groups of indicators, other?)

�One-bag rule?

The Mazurian Lakes The Biebrza River

Comparability problems

• One-year assessment does give a real picture

of WB status

• OM does not give a real picture of WB status

• One out – all out rule

• Natural WB vs HMWB / AWB

• Many monitoring points on one WB

• Non-EU countries are not WFD-obligedThe Jeziorak Lake

Comparability - conclusions

�Common reports – common indicators (EEA Core-

Set?)

�Common reports – common data package (the

same parametres, the same units)

�Multi-year assessment (data from the whole 6-

year management period?)

The Vistula River

Thank you for your attention